Moderator: Jon Estes
Neil Heath wrote:Lou, I need to point out that I have seen both moderates and conservatives who posted their disagreement with the HL decision, so I don't think it's the political left alone that has a problem with it.
underline mine.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.
The Green and Hahn families object to their closely-held for-profit corporations providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA-approved contraceptives that the Green and Hahn families believe may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg (many scientists disagree), which the Green and Hahn families believe constitute an abortion:[10][11][12]
Emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes inaccurately called "morning after" pills)
- Plan B (levonorgestrel) and its generic equivalents
- ella (ulipristal acetate)
Intrauterine devices (IUDs):
- ParaGard (copper IUD)
- Mirena and Skyla (levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs)
"Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities."
KeithE wrote:This ruling is no big deal in itself (their 21,000 employees at HL and 1,000 employees at CW will have to pay for these 4 contraceptives themselves or use other contraceptives or find employment elsewhere). However, the precedent set that the RFRA applies to corporations as well as person's may lead many owners of corporations (closely held or publically traded) to place undue influence on people in their employ (very possibly leading to discrimination in hiring, firing, welcome based on the personal religious views of their employer). I hope HL and other business owners do not feel so emboldened.
Thus the ruling has open the doors to corporation infringement on personal religious freedom/beliefs while limiting federal government infringement on corporate owners. Bad ruling in my opinion and a misapplication of the RFRA. Sorry Lou, I support the RFRA and it's emphasis on personal religious freedom (as any good Baptist should), but this 5-4 ruling sets a dangerous precedence and clearly a celebrated "culture war" event.
Lou wrote:KeithE wrote:This ruling is no big deal in itself (their 21,000 employees at HL and 1,000 employees at CW will have to pay for these 4 contraceptives themselves or use other contraceptives or find employment elsewhere). However, the precedent set that the RFRA applies to corporations as well as person's may lead many owners of corporations (closely held or publically traded) to place undue influence on people in their employ (very possibly leading to discrimination in hiring, firing, welcome based on the personal religious views of their employer). I hope HL and other business owners do not feel so emboldened.
Thus the ruling has open the doors to corporation infringement on personal religious freedom/beliefs while limiting federal government infringement on corporate owners. Bad ruling in my opinion and a misapplication of the RFRA. Sorry Lou, I support the RFRA and it's emphasis on personal religious freedom (as any good Baptist should), but this 5-4 ruling sets a dangerous precedence and clearly a celebrated "culture war" event.
The issue of closely-held corporations being accorded the same legal rights as individual persons under the RFRA is certainly an interesting one, and I suspect that we've not heard the last of it. But there is a problem inherent in 'slippery slope' arguments, because--paradoxically--they start us down their own slippery slope. For example, I don't know what the 3 Senate dissenters were specifically opposed to when they voted against the RFRA, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were afraid that the Act might start us down a slippery slope to the very place where we now are with this Supreme Court decision. Did Congress and the President realize in 1993 that the RFRA might open the door to abuse? Almost certainly. But it was the opinion of 100% of the House of Representatives, 97% of the Senate, and the sitting POTUS that it was a risk worth taking in order to protect individual religious liberties from the encroachment of Federal legislation.
In any case, the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision encompassed the single issue of whether or not those corporations should be required to offer health insurance that provided drugs which the majority holders (the Green and Hahn families) believed to be abortifacient, and thus contrary to their religious beliefs. If that decision emboldens those corporations or others to take actions which over-reach into other areas not therein addressed, we can be assured that those actions will be similarly litigated.
Stephen Fox wrote:http://abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28885-justice-blundered
Neil Heath wrote:An equally important question in my mind centers around the idea that we should allow the Greens to act on what they believe to be true, even if it isn't true at all. The medical info I have read uniformly agrees that the 4 methods in question do not cause abortions.
If you can convince me that a corporation can experience conversion to Christian faith, then I'll concede that this Supreme Court decision was consistent with over 230 years of constitutional interpretation. If you think that they can be, then I guess you believe that pickles have souls.
Dave Roberts wrote:For me, as for many I'm reading here, this SCOTUS decision is neither a victory for Christians or corporations or liberty. I'm no legal scholar, but the application of religious rights to corporations can cause all sorts of havoc as individual rights are trumped by corporate rights. For example, a friend believes that the debt provisions of the Sabbath Year in the OT should be applied. Does that mean that someone believing this from a literal scriptural interpretation should be freed from all remaining debts after 7 years? Corporations, claiming to be Christian, certainly are selective literalists in their application of scripture.
Also, there was nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision that questioned the convictions of the Greens in the realm of science. In fact, the scientific evidence of how a couple of the named drugs work did not support their allegations about them. Have we opened a door where claims that are not supported by evidence now can become the law of the land? If so, we are in deeper waters legally than we dare to go.
Bruce Gourley wrote:The Hobby Lobby decision is a disaster for freedom of conscience, religious liberty and church state separation. Baptists in the 17th and 18th centuries gave their all to win freedom of conscience and religious liberty equally for all, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized religious discrimination in the workplace. In short, your employer can now legally force his or her religious beliefs upon you.
This us unconscionable and diametrically opposed to our Baptist heritage, the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels as a whole.
Similar to that earlier era, the religious dogma of the Green family (the Southern Baptist owners of Hobby Lobby) is now legally binding upon employees.
For example, the second-largest shareholder of News Corps, parent of Fox News, is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Muslim. The way has been paved for News Corp to decree that women employees must wear Islamic garb, and that all employees must pray five times a day toward Mecca. The many Mormon-owned corporations (Mormonism being “the most capitalist religion”) can now, if they wish, set their sights on requiring employees to abstain from coffee and tea while on the job, or mandate the wearing of Mormon sacred garments as a part of the workplace dress code.
America’s — and Baptists’ — hard-fought heritage of church and state separation is now endangered by five radical members of the Supreme Court who, in the space of two months, have twice decreed that the religious dogmas of powerful and privileged Christians must be favored over and against the rights of ordinary citizens.
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest